View full sizeMike Greenlar / The Post StandardFile photo of Jordan-Elbridge school district attorney Frank W. Miller, with J-E school board members standing behind him. The state’s open meetings law expert today said the board properly used an attorney-client privilege exemption to close its meeting and not identify what pending litigation it discussed behind closed doors Tuesday.

Jordan, NY - The state’s open meetings law expert today said the Jordan-Elbridge school board properly used an exemption to close its meeting this week to discuss legal matters with its lawyer, although the expert said it could have been done more clearly.

In holding executive sessions, school boards and other governmental bodies need to say what litigation they are going to discuss, according to Robert Freeman, executive director for the state’s Open Committee on Open Government.

School board president Mary Alley told a crowd of about 20 people that the board was going into executive session “for purposes of conferring with legal counsel to discuss matters of pending litigation.” After the board voted to go into executive session, district lawyer Frank W. Miller cited an exemption of the Open Meetings Law — Section 108 — for why they did not have to specify the pending litigation.

“In a technical sense, in my opinion, the use of terminology was not as precise or artful as it should have been,” Freeman said. “However, I believe the board would have had a basis for excluding the public either by means of an executive session or the assertion of the attorney-client privilege.”

Miller said the school board went above and beyond what the law requires by notifying the public of the meeting, but for good reason.

“What do you think would have happened if we said we’re going to have a private meeting with the public excluded?” Miller asked. “I think people would have been upset and claimed there was a violation of the law when in fact there wasn’t.”

After talking to Miller, Freeman said he believes the school district was trying to be “kind” to the public by referring to their meeting as an executive session — a phrase that’s familiar to so many people.

Submitted photoRobert Freeman

“Let’s face it, I think people are angry at the board as it is,” Freeman said. “The notion was to avoid fueling that fire.”

Miller said the board used the term — executive session — because most people understand that it refers to a board meeting with the public excluded.

“We chose our language to not further enflame the situation and furthermore we did more than we were required to do under the law,” he said. “We didn’t use it to mislead, but to say we’re having a private, confidential meeting.”

Miller said the board has been criticized in the past for doing things in secret.

“I didn’t want to take a chance people in the public would misperceive what we were doing,” he said. “We were doing it right.”